You're perverting the discussion.
Race is a very relevant factor when you're determining if you need to protect yourself in a situation where you might stand out and be attacked because of your race, which is totally in the cards for a white guy in a dangerous black neighborhood.

Or is this the part where you say black people can't really attack white people because of historical power structure imbalances, or whatever other delusional nonsense you people believe?

The fact that we have all these problems in the world and no way to fix any of them is making me sad.

So when you were on duty you walked around fully armed at all times ?

I'd absolutely question whether the correlation was valid, because its essentially suggesting that someone otherwise motivated to commit a mass shooting decided not to because they could only get a firearm with a magazine of 10 rounds, rather than 13. It could be a totally spurrious correlation, or attributable to other things. Or lightly correlated. I doubt either you or I are going to delve into the source data for the sake of internet argument, so that's probably a dead end. But spurrious correlations can be super interesting.

The data inarguably shows that science spending makes people hang themselves.



I don't belive (for a second) that 'firearm type availability' is part of the process of a mass shooter that stops them from doing it, no, however I will totally cede that their wanting to get the deadliest firearm availalbe IS part of their thought process. We agree on that. We even have working historical examples in countries that relatively recently banned nearly all fireams, and it went precisely as you'd think.

First, ban (whatever) because nobody needs a (whatever)
Then, a mass shooting happens with (whatever's left allowed), so they call to ban that, because nobody needs (that).
Then, a mass shooting happens with (whatever's left allowed), so they call to ban that, because nobody needs (that).

My ultimate point is that you have no credibility when you claim that you just want to ban a certain type of fiream, and not eventually all firearms, because there's no timeline where the fireams you don't want to ban, now, aren't used to commit a mass shooting.

Its why I can ask a simple question like this:

"Say someone who is otherwise legally able to purchase a fiream purchases a shotgun and shoots up a school, are you not calling for additional gun bans?"

And most (perhaps not you, since you're somewhat intellectually consistent) melt down and change the topic.

My ultimate pont is the position of banning 'some guns' - while simultaniously claiming that you don't want to ban all guns- is not credible.

You're a bit more honest on essentially wanting to ban all guns, but most on your side aren't.
Their doubletalk and immediately recognizable lack of credibility is why they fail on gun policy issues.

I assume that you carry a firearm at all times for some reason. If the reason isn't a concern about safety (either your own safety or the safety of others), then what is the reason?

Oh, I could think of a few ways to fix them.
You wouldn't like those ways, but it would fix them...

When have I ever said anything as stupid as this?

Go on.

You didn't say that, but you did say a lot of other garbage that indicated you are more interested in pushing a poltiical agenda than actually addresing things as they are.

No.

Such as?

I gave you a link to a research study that found a link between two laws and reduced mass shootings.

None of those laws involved banning guns.

You then accused me of wanting to ban all guns.

I'm not your enemy.

My solution is to reduce the number of guns in circulation by a drastic amount. I don't care if certain types of guns are banned. Likely that's prudent but that's not really the goal.

The goal for most of us is public safety.
The goal for some of you guys is "don't touch my stuff".

At some point (and it's getting close) the adults are going to take your toys away.

I'd like to hear your ideas.

Especially if they involve lesbian professors in libraries.

I saw a movie like that once but this probably isn't the venue.

OK, now you're doubletalking, bad.
The research study you provided didn't 'prove a link'... it said "these laws were passed and then here are the statistics for shootings, so this must have caused that".
For that to be true, it would mean that those intent on mass shootings stopped short because of 'available magazine capacity at gun stores within the boundaries of Massachusetts', or whatever.
That is not credible.

Sometimes, I think the far left really struggles to make certain judgement calls. Its like, some peoples brains are wired so idealistic that "Yeah, ya know, its totally plausible that the dude was going to shoot up a school but went, ****... the only magazine available at the gun store down the street is 10 rounds, so forget it!!"

Like, you literally believe that.
Its required you believe that for the study you posted above to be a legitimate correlation between cause and effect.
Do you believe that?

Also, you were kinda good up to this point about not doing that "nobody said they wanted to ban all guns... I just want to ban guns" thing, but here you are doing it.
Its like its in the DNA of the far left to do that and lack the basic self-awareness to realize you sound like a ****** when you do.

Anyway, no, your side is definitely not the 'adults', you're the children and you won't be taking anything away.
Some stricter regulation is totally possible, but you won't be taking anything away. Keep dreaming about 'the future, when it finally happens!"
I'll exist just fine here in reality, where it won't ever happen.

Handgun purchaser licensing laws and bans of large-capacity magazines (LCMs) were associated with significant reductions in the incidence of fatal mass shootings



as·so·ci·ate
verb
verb: associate; 3rd person present: associates; past tense: associated; past participle: associated; gerund or present participle: associating
/əˈsōsēˌāt,əˈsōSHēˌāt/

connect (someone or something) with something else in one's mind.
"I associated wealth with freedom"

While I understand and accept that you don't agree with the study, you aren't actually refuting it. You're summarily dismissing it.

And I really don't want to ban all guns.
The fact that you're convinced I do is going to make it impossible for you to ever consider anything I say in an objective light.

besides, it's not what I want.
This isn't a fight that I have a dog in. This is much more about what you want and what you're afraid of happening in the near future.

I would like to comfort you because whatever the future holds, it's not going to be nearly as bad as you seem to think.

But honestly, you guys have caused quite the mess.

Well did u ever face a situation for a needed loaded gun ready to shoot ?
Feeling and the actual need to fire is a different thing .


What would be that situation?

What room u would feel more secure ?
A place where there is no guns or a place where there is 100 guns ?

People get angry , drunk , mis value a situation , miss fire , etc …

Like I said previously , every where else around the world , your hypothetical scenario do not comes up much .
U watch too much vigilante movie .

And again , u might have all the guns in the world , but criminals and crazy people will find way to kill u if they really are crazy enough to do so .
And they will find always bigger guns than yours if all people were armed .

It’s exactly why the US police resemble more of an military instead of a police …
They always will get bigger intervention tools to what exist in the street , creating even more probabilistic chaos and drama .
It just cost more money with bigger side effects .

If you're going to participate in a conversation, there's at least some obligation to follow along.

Yes, twice, including one where I actually fired the gun.

For two things to be statistically associated, there must be a causal and/or effectual relationship.
Addressed above. I maintain one needn't be a degreed social scientist to dismiss the idea that mass shooters are stopped by magazine capacity, when one estimates the motivations of mass shooters. I also maintain that its a totally valid assertion that when estimating those very same motivations, mass shooters would be compelled to buy the MOST deadly firearms available.

You can very fairly say "a mass shooter is more likely to purchase an AR15 than a bolt action .22 single shot rifle" and that would logically stand up, given said motives, but it requires a bizarre divorce from reality to say "mass shooters are stopped from comitting mass shootings based on the regional availablity of firearms magazine capacity limited to 10 rounds"... for several reasons. If we SERIOUSLY need to go deeper into this, OK, but understand that's the inference of the 'study' you cited there and it doesn't pass the smell test on its face, because it requires us to guess at the movites of mass shooters, then extrapolate they're stopped from comitting mass shootings because the magazine only held 10, rather than 14. That is not rational.

Specifically, what firearms do you want banned, what fireams would you not ban and given your "ban a gun as a response to a shooting" premise, what's your reaction to a shooting that would occur with the guns you claim you don't want banned? If you can answer this honestly, I'll totally respect that.

Tell us more ?

Fwiw , if every country in the world had nuclear weapon , would it be better and would u feel more safe ?
Knowing unfit leaders will eventually end up in a position to control those weapons ?

if anyone can get easy access to guns , then every nut case or « temporary deranged » people will as well .
Not just responsible people like u .
(Btw being responsible do not prevent doing a mistake )

Ps: using nuclear weapon vs countries is relatively like guns vs humans .

In your opinion, why countries with less guns aren’t face with much more security problems and elevated danger like in the US if it’s not due to proliferation of guns ?

You say it is not fear and then in your last sentence show it is fear of what you see happen in schools and grocery stores.

You seem to not understand (or don't want to accept) that is a fear response. If you had zero fear of what happens in a school or a grocery store you would not feel a need to carry.

Why? So you can try to collaterally attack the scenarios and not have to address the overwhelming reality that people using firearms to defend themselves isn't as 'rare' as the far left claims, there are literally NO statistics contrally compiled on the issue and anecdotally speaking, in one of my instances, the cops weren't called?

I don't think you understand much about nuclear weapons, either.

WoW .
Nvm

Aren't the majority of gun deaths, ones that occur in the homes or involve individuals who would be considered 'good guys with guns' when they got their guns?

Suicides, domestic violence, etc?

Seems to me upping the number of 'good guys getting guns' if the SC opens that door nationwide we will absolutely see a corresponding spike in those types of gun deaths.

Well that pretty much defines you as a psycho who should be no where near a gun.

You are saying that if you get in a verbal confrontation with people and someone escalates and pushes you and you fall down in a harmless way, that even as they retreat (see you have a gun or not) , you are going to shoot them and kill them because as they are retreating you fear they may have or get a gun and you want to end the potential of that threat preemptively.

So you're summarily dismissing the study instead of bothering to offer a refutation. I get it.

So how do you propose we study the range of outcomes that you're worried about if not statistically ?

Also, why do you keep insisting that my indifference to some new or changed gun ban laws equates with a positive desire by me for them to occur ?

I keep telling you that my goal here is to reduce gun violence in general and especially these terrible mass shootings. My goal isn't to eliminate guns from society nor is it to allow citizens to own more effective anti human guns.
It's just not something I'm considering at all at the moment.

I likely never will. This is a practical matter to me. I view it from a public health and safety perspective more than a cultural or self identity one.